{"id":23898,"date":"2009-09-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009"},"modified":"2016-10-17T23:16:47","modified_gmt":"2016-10-17T17:46:47","slug":"c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"C.K.Masood vs Subaida on 9 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
C.K.Masood vs Subaida on 9 September, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.MC.No. 195 of 2008()\n\n\n1. C.K.MASOOD, AGED 41 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SUBAIDA, D\/O. A.K.MUHAMMED HAJI,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE -REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :09\/09\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n              ------------------------------------------\n                CRL.M.C.NO. 195 OF 2008\n              ------------------------------------------\n\n             Dated      9th     September          2009\n\n\n                           O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
          Petitioner is the respondent in M.C.28\/2000<\/p>\n
on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasargod and<\/p>\n
revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.43\/2004 on the file of<\/p>\n
Sessions court, Kasargod. Admittedly marriage of the<\/p>\n
petitioner and first respondent was solemnised on<\/p>\n
22\/5\/1995 as per the religious customs and ceremony<\/p>\n
and they were living as husband and wife and in that<\/p>\n
wed lock two children were born. Subsequently one                 of<\/p>\n
the children died. Respondent filed M.C.28\/2000 under<\/p>\n
Section 3(1) of   Muslim Women (Protection of rights on<\/p>\n
Divorce) Act contending that                petitioner pronounced<\/p>\n
talaq  on 5\/2\/2000 and thereby she is a divorced wife<\/p>\n
and   petitioner did not return mahr or the gold<\/p>\n
ornaments and did not make any                  fair and resonable<\/p>\n
provision  and also did not pay maintenance for the<\/p>\n
Iddat  period, she     sought Rs.5,000\/- as              maintenance<\/p>\n
for Iddat period        and        Rs.2,00,000\/- as fair and<\/p>\n
reasonable provision for her future maintenance and<\/p>\n
CRMC 195\/08                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
also claimed return   of Rs.30,000\/-, allegedly paid<\/p>\n
by her father and also return of one sovereign of<\/p>\n
gold paid as mahr and value of 25 sovereign of gold<\/p>\n
ornaments taken by petitioner. Petitioner resisted<\/p>\n
the petition contending that respondent is not the<\/p>\n
divorced wife and there was no divorce at all and no<\/p>\n
talaq was pronounced. It is contended that      talaq<\/p>\n
nama executed on 14\/4\/1999   was not witnessed by any<\/p>\n
one and    talaq did not come into effect  and in any<\/p>\n
case,  first   respondent  is   not  entitled     for<\/p>\n
maintenance for Iddat period as she has not performed<\/p>\n
the iddat   and she is in a sound financial position<\/p>\n
and more than Rs.1,00,000\/- was given to the father<\/p>\n
of first respondent and she is not entitled to any<\/p>\n
further amount. Learned Magistrate, on the evidence<\/p>\n
of first respondent and her witness    and Exts.P1 to<\/p>\n
P6 and that of the petitioner   and RW2  to RW4   and<\/p>\n
Exts.D1 and D2, found that there was    a divorce by<\/p>\n
talaq and first respondent is the divorced wife of<\/p>\n
the petitioner and he did not pay maintenance for the<\/p>\n
Iddat period    or made or paid fair and reasonable<\/p>\n
provision or return the mahr  and directed petitioner<\/p>\n
to  pay   maintenance of  Rs.5,000\/-  for  the  Iddat<\/p>\n
period, Rs.20,000\/- being the amount received at the<\/p>\n
CRMC 195\/08                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
time of marriage from the father of petitioner and<\/p>\n
value   of  gold   ornaments   belonging   to   first<\/p>\n
respondent,  in addition to Rs.Two Lakhs being the<\/p>\n
fair and reasonable provision.   He was directed to<\/p>\n
pay total sum of Rs.3,34,600\/-. Petitioner challenged<\/p>\n
that order before sessions court in Crl.R.P.43\/2004.<\/p>\n
Learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence<\/p>\n
found  that  there  was  a  valid  talaq  and   first<\/p>\n
respondent is the divorced wife of the petitioner and<\/p>\n
he is liable to pay maintenance for the Iddat period<\/p>\n
as well as fair and reasonable provision and also<\/p>\n
liable to return the gold ornaments and Rs.30,000\/-<\/p>\n
received from the father of first respondent and<\/p>\n
upheld the quantum fixed by the learned Magistrate.<\/p>\n
Revision   petition was dismissed. This petition is<\/p>\n
filed  under   Section  482  of   Code  of   Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure, evidently as no second revision is not<\/p>\n
maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
          2.  Learned    counsel    appearing     for<\/p>\n
petitioner and learned counsel appearing for first<\/p>\n
respondent were heard.\n<\/p>\n
          3.  Learned  counsel   appearing  for   the<\/p>\n
petitioner pointed out that though learned Magistrate<\/p>\n
and learned Sessions Judge relied on the evidence of<\/p>\n
CRMC 195\/08                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
PW2, the office bearer of the mosque, to show that<\/p>\n
there was pronouncement of    talaq and hence   first<\/p>\n
respondent is a divorced wife, fact that subsequently<\/p>\n
PW2 had written a letter to the court stating that<\/p>\n
the evidence tendered earlier is not correct and<\/p>\n
there was no talaq     was not properly appreciated.<\/p>\n
Argument of the learned counsel is that in the light<\/p>\n
of that letter and the assertion made, when he was<\/p>\n
subsequently recalled and examined it should have<\/p>\n
been found that as no valid talaq was established,<\/p>\n
petition   should  have  been   dismissed   as  first<\/p>\n
respondent is not a divorced wife. It is also argued<\/p>\n
that  there  is  no  evidence  to  prove  that  first<\/p>\n
respondent had performed Iddat as it is admitted that<\/p>\n
she had attended the court during that period  and in<\/p>\n
such circumstances, maintenance awarded for Iddat<\/p>\n
period is     unsustainable.   Learned counsel also<\/p>\n
argued   that  in  any  case,  fair   and  reasonable<\/p>\n
provision awarded by the courts below is excessive.<\/p>\n
          4.   Learned counsel  appearing  for  first<\/p>\n
respondent argued that learned Magistrate and learned<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge properly appreciated the evidence and<\/p>\n
there is no reason to interfere with the orders.<\/p>\n
          5.   Though learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
CRMC 195\/08                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner argued that  there was no talaq and fist<\/p>\n
respondent continued to be the wife of petitioner and<\/p>\n
therefore, she is not entitled to file a petition<\/p>\n
under Section 3(1) of the Act as a divorced wife,<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate and learned   Sessions Judge    on<\/p>\n
proper appreciation of evidence found that there was<\/p>\n
a  valid    talaq  and  petitioner   divorced   first<\/p>\n
respondent on 5\/2\/2000 by talaq. Learned Magistrate<\/p>\n
has relied on Ext.P4, admittedly a letter written by<\/p>\n
the petitioner himself, admitting that he had an<\/p>\n
intention to divorce the first respondent. Learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate apart from relying on the evidence of PW1,<\/p>\n
relied on the evidence of PW2. Argument of the<\/p>\n
learned counsel is that even though PW2  corroborated<\/p>\n
the evidence of PW1, in the light of a subsequent<\/p>\n
letter  written  to  the  learned  Magistrate    that<\/p>\n
evidence   earlier tendered   is  not  correct,   the<\/p>\n
evidence of PW2 is to be ignored. I cannot agree with<\/p>\n
the submission. Unfortunately, learned Magistrate did<\/p>\n
not take action against PW2, in spite of the fact<\/p>\n
that  he had addressed the Magistrate admitting the<\/p>\n
perjury.   Whatever  it  be,   based  on   a   letter<\/p>\n
subsequently sent to the court that evidence tendered<\/p>\n
earlier is under the influence of one of the parties,<\/p>\n
CRMC 195\/08                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
it is not possible to challenge the version. If PW2<\/p>\n
could be compelled to     tender evidence, he could<\/p>\n
definitely   be compelled to sent a letter  later on.<\/p>\n
Whatever it be,     based on proper appreciation of<\/p>\n
evidence courts below found that there was a valid<\/p>\n
talaq and hence first respondent is the divorced<\/p>\n
wife. I find no reason to interfere with          that<\/p>\n
factual finding. If that be so, so long as the<\/p>\n
provisions provided under Section 3(1)  were not made<\/p>\n
or paid at the time of talaq, first respondent, being<\/p>\n
the  divorced  wife   is  entitled  to  the   benefits<\/p>\n
available under Section 3(1) of the Act.<\/p>\n
          6.   Though  it   was  argued   that  first<\/p>\n
respondent did not perform     Iddat, evidence of PW1<\/p>\n
accepted   by  the  learned  Magistrate  and  learned<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge establish that she had performed the<\/p>\n
Iddat.   In the light of that factual finding, I find<\/p>\n
no reason to interfere with the findings of courts<\/p>\n
below  that first     respondent is entitled   to get<\/p>\n
maintenance for the Iddat period. The quantum of<\/p>\n
Rs.5,000\/- is only reasonable, in the light of the<\/p>\n
evidence.\n<\/p>\n
          7.   Learned Magistrate and learned Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge   found that   petitioner has sufficient means<\/p>\n
CRMC 195\/08                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
and based on  the  evidence fixed fair and reasonable<\/p>\n
provision. There is no reason  to interfere with that<\/p>\n
factual findings also. That is also the case with<\/p>\n
regard to the direction to pay        value of gold<\/p>\n
ornaments  belonging to first respondent and return<\/p>\n
of the money   received at the time of marriage. In<\/p>\n
such  circumstances,  exercising  the   powers  under<\/p>\n
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, I find no<\/p>\n
reason to   interfere with the order passed by the<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate as confirmed by learned Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge.\n<\/p>\n
          Petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
\n                                           JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\nuj.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court C.K.Masood vs Subaida on 9 September, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 195 of 2008() 1. C.K.MASOOD, AGED 41 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. SUBAIDA, D\/O. A.K.MUHAMMED HAJI, … Respondent 2. STATE -REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23898","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC.K.Masood vs Subaida on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.K.Masood vs Subaida on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-17T17:46:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.K.Masood vs Subaida on 9 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-17T17:46:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1244,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009\",\"name\":\"C.K.Masood vs Subaida on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-17T17:46:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.K.Masood vs Subaida on 9 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"C.K.Masood vs Subaida on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.K.Masood vs Subaida on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-17T17:46:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.K.Masood vs Subaida on 9 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-17T17:46:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009"},"wordCount":1244,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009","name":"C.K.Masood vs Subaida on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-17T17:46:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-k-masood-vs-subaida-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.K.Masood vs Subaida on 9 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23898","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23898"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23898\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23898"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23898"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23898"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}